Saturday, May 31, 2008

Must not mention Christianity in Iraq

We read:

"The US military is investigating a marine accused of promoting Christianity in Iraq by giving coins to civilians with a Bible verse written on them in Arabic. "They have initiated an investigation into that and there is some evidence of an individual that was doing that," said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman. The marine has been accused of distributing the coins to Iraqis as they passed through a checkpoint in Falluja, US officials said. "Where will you spend eternity?" was written on one side of the coins, according to a report from McClatchy News Service.

On the other was a Bible verse written in Arabic referring to Jesus: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:16."

If true, the marine would have violated US military rules that prohibit the promotion of any religion, faith or practice. "This has our full attention," Colonel James Welsh, the US commander in western Iraq, said. "We deeply value our relationship with the local citizens and share their concerns over this serious incident."

"Dunkin' Donuts has axed an online advertisement featuring celebrity chef Rachael Ray over a fringed black-and-white scarf that critics said offered symbolic support for Muslim extremism and terrorism. In the ad, Ray wears the scarf around her neck and holds an iced coffee.

US critics, including conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, complained that the scarf looked similar to the black-and-white checkered kaffiyeh, the traditional Palestinian scarf, the Associated Press reported. The kaffiyeh "has come to symbolise murderous Palestinian jihad. Popularised by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant (and not-so-ignorant) fashion designers, celebrities, and left-wing icons," Ms Malkin said.

Dunkin' Donuts said the scarf had a paisley design, and was selected by a stylist for the advertising shoot. "Absolutely no symbolism was intended," the company said.

In an age of sensitivity firms have to be careful. Not good for free speech, though. If enough conservatives struck back like this, it might make the Left less keen in their censorship attempts. Faint hope, I suppose.

Friday, May 30, 2008

Naughty Rush!

I am afraid I had to laugh at the report below:

We read:

"Latinos have a lengthy history at the receiving end of insults and mischaracterizations that media personalities dish out and get away with. That's what happened May 5 - Cinco de Mayo, of all days - when conservative radio antagonist Rush Limbaugh, describing on air an encounter with Bill Clinton, said he wasn't sure whether Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who was present, was a "shoe shine guy" or a "secret service agent."

"An immigration showdown played out Monday on the DePaul University campus. Supporters of immigration reform camped out overnight ahead of a speech from the co-founder of a group that opposes illegal immigration.

The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps says it uses only legal methods to help authorities secure our borders. But critics compare it to a militia and say it promotes hate.

A few dozen protestors started gathering outside the Sullivan Athletic Center around 5:30 Monday night. By 7 p.m., hundreds of people gathered outside to protest the group's president and co-founder, Chris Simcox's, scheduled speech. He was invited by the DePaul Conservative Alliance and is expected to address a crowd of about 200.

But dozens of protestors say Simcox and his thoughts on immigration are not welcome at DePaul.... "This, as a Catholic institution, should've not allowed him to come here and bring in a speech of hate," said activist Julie Santos. "They talked about free speech, but a hate speech is not free speech." ......

In an unusual move, the university asked the sponsoring student group to pay a $2,500 security fee to cover the cost of additional security to handle the protesters.

Marathon Pundit says what happened. Someone apparently came up with the money for the $2500 extortion and the lecture went ahead among loud protests that it was hate speech etc. Wanting the law obeyed is hate, you see.

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Islam is now a race?

Article below from Australia. From what I see, the most common Muslim population group in Australia is the Lebanese, who are not physically distinguishable from Europeans.

"A Sydney council's rejection of a proposed Islamic school is a victory for racism, a Muslim community organisation says. Camden Council last night voted unanimously to reject a proposal for a 1200-student Islamic school, a decision that followed months of heated community meetings and the release of an adverse report by the council's planners last week.

Mayor Chris Patterson said the council's decision was based on concerns surrounding the impact on traffic flows, loss of agricultural land, highlighted in the planners report and not on religious grounds.

But the independent think tank FAIR (Forum on Australia's Islamic Relations) said the decision came as no surprise and was "a reflection of unwarranted fear and ignorance about Islam". .... "I see this as a victory for racism.

I guess most readers have heard of the "man" who is pregnant. It's not a man at all, of course. It's a woman who decided she wanted to be a man and who took hormones to promote that. She then decided she wanted to be a mother too.

A Patrick Barbieri expressed "disgust" at the decisions the deranged woman took leading to that situation. He expressed concern for the physical and emotional health of the resultant child.

A Leftist writer, Diana Watkins, however, felt that what the deranged woman was doing was OK. So how did Leftist Diana go about arguing for that point of view? She didn't really. Rational argument is not a Leftist talent. She headed her article as "Meet Mr. Hate" -- referring to Barbieri. Abuse was the best she was capable of. She accused Barbieri of hate but read her full article and see how it drips hatred of Mr Barbieri. That good old Leftist "projection" at work again. There is some good advice for Lefty Diana in Matthew 7:3-5.

Note that Barbieri expressed disgust only at the "decisions" the deranged woman made. He did not condemn her as a person. He in fact expressed some sympathy for her: A sharp contrast with the words of our little Leftist hater. Far from being "Mr Hate", Barbieri comes across as a gentleman -- but a Leftist would not know how to recognize one of those, of course.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

English Motorist told English flag was racist

We read:

"A teenage motorist was told to remove an England flag from his car by a police officer because it could be offensive to immigrants. Ben Smith, 18, was driving back home to Ingram Road in Melksham on Thursday evening after filling up with petrol, when the officer stopped him on a routine patrol.

He checked the tax disc and tyres on his Vauxhall Corsa but when he noticed the flag of St George on the parcel shelf he told Mr Smith to take it down. Mr Smith, who works for G Plan Upholsterers on Hampton Park West, said: "He saw the flag and said it was racist towards immigrants and if I refused to take it down I would get a œ30 fine. "I laughed because I thought he was joking, but then I realised he was serious so I had to take it down straight away. I thought it was silly - it's my country and I want to show my support for my country."

PC Dave Cooper, of Chippenham Road Policing Unit, said he had never come across an officer asking someone to remove an England flag from their car because it could be racist. He added: "It all depends on the context of a stop. If they are going past a lot of Polish people, for instance, and abusing them, then we possibly would ask them to take the flag down."

I have often said here that conservatives should discourage Google's anti-conservative bigotry by using other search engines. And I continue to think that. On the other hand, I am using Google's hospitality in posting this blog here by way of a Google facility. So am I being a hypocrite? Perhaps I am. I do at least not accept advertising (from Google or anyone else) on any of my blogs.

Anyway, I thought the post below from Macsmind was worth some thought:

"I know that it's beyond expecting Google to celebrate anything except that which is negative to America, so I don't expect them to memorialize our troops on memorial day. Yahoo has. Ask.com has. Even Dogpile has.

But Google has not. In fact it has yet to ever recognize anything except leftist causes. While I can't influence Google's editorial decision I can control whether I give their spots face time on this blog. Since this blog averages 30,000 hits a day I believe that the best way I can show my displeasure for their oversight, is to remove their ads.

If you have a website, blog, and you're tired of watching Google disrespect the troops I ask you in the spirit of patriotism and for the memory of those who have fallen to remove your associations from Google as well.

Perhaps they will get the message and perhaps they won't, but I don't care. They paid next to nothing for their adsense program - if they paid at all. So on this memorial day how about passing it around and following my example.

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Changing Rules

I had a small surgical procedure on one of my eyes a few hours ago so posting on some of my blogs is a bit reduced. I put up below something I wrote a few days ago

Back in the '70's, I was with a few friends in a certain club in Sydney when we were introduced to another club member of Indian origin who was distinctly dark of skin. His name was "Dan". A jocular friend of mine (now a retired Professor) shook his hand and said: "You've got a good suntan there, Dan".

It was obviously a joke and everybody had a laugh, including Dan. But if my friend had said the same in the America of today, he would probably have earned Dan a payout of a million dollars from the club.

Going even farther back, my father liked the music of a black American group of singers who called themselves "The Inkspots". They did have a very mellow sound. But call a black American an "Inkspot" today and you would again be likely to make him a millionaire.

Something else that seems rather strange in retrospect is that in my grade-school days, the TEACHERS used to call me "The little white cloud that cries". Why? Did I cry a lot? Not at all. I was good at schoolwork and was well-regarded by the teachers and generally had little trouble at school other than boredom.

I was called that name because there was a popular American "crooner" at that time named Johnny Ray -- a similar name to mine -- and one of his popular songs was "The little white cloud that cries". These days the teacher would no doubt be disciplined and I might be much richer. But, as it was, I didn't like popular music much even in those days so I had no clue what it was all about and just stared blankly.

So nothing whatever came of it and no harm was done to anybody. I guess that the teachers just thought it was funny. There was not a lot of entertainment in the small town where I lived in the 1950's.

And my parents just dismissed it as nonsense too. My father was a fiery-tempered red-headed lumberjack with quite a reputation as a bar-room brawler so if he had taken umbrage the teacher concerned would have rued the day.

I think I spent my childhood very much under my father's aegis (protection) in the small town of Innisfail where we lived. Everybody knew I was the son of "Bluey" Ray and nobody wanted to tangle with HIM! Yet he was in his way also a great gentleman -- in one of those complex bits of reality of the sort that that Leftists never can understand. For instance, he never once got up from the dining table without telling my mother how much he enjoyed the meal. I am kind to women, children and dogs and I am quite sure that I get that from my father -- though I will never be half the gentleman that he was.

Something I noticed recently: My local Indian restaurant still has some small plastic Father Christmases up on its walls. They put them up before last Christmas but seem not to to realize that you take then down after Christmas. They are Sikhs by religion but Christmas clearly does not "offend" them, as Leftists so often claim.

This story has been going around the blogs a bit in the last day or so, so I thought I might mention it here:

The Subway sandwich chain is running a writing contest for kids from which homeschooled kids are specifically excluded. Excluding a potential one million customers seems pretty dumb to start with but the stupidity does not end there. In their promo they write (down the very bottom) of the "Untied" States and homeschoolers are described as "home schools". Note that there was another misspelling too: "bastket".

And to top it off it is pre-schoolers that they are asking to compose sentences. A bit ambitious! See here and here for more.

As I had had a small eye operation only a few hours before I wrote the above, I could not see very well and missed a couple of things (funnily enough). Now corrected.

Jerry Lerman has grabbed a copy of the original promo in case they wake up long enough to correct the original. See here. You may have to use the resize gadget to enlarge the pic. Jerry has highlighted the bloopers in red.

Monday, May 26, 2008

Restrictions on how Australian blacks may be portrayed?

Free speech, anyone? We read:

"A lawyer this week will seek "substantial damages" for an Aboriginal woman who believes she was racially vilified in a PhD student's film. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission accepted a racial hatred complaint filed on behalf of May Dunne, 52, a grandmother from Boulia in central-western Queensland.

In the controversial PhD film Laughing at the Disabled: Creating Comedy that Confronts, Offends and Entertains Mrs Dunne was depicted as an intoxicated Aboriginal woman in a stereotypical manner, the complaint says. The film - renamed Laughing at the Disabled - by Queensland University of Technology PhD student Michael Noonan, showed Mrs Dunne in a hotel and cuddling a disabled man. The commission has named QUT; Mr Noonan; the Spectrum Organisation, which partly funded the film; its chief executive officer, John Hart, who helped film the footage; and Disability Services Queensland as respondents to the complaint....

Ted Watson, an advocate acting on Mrs Dunne's behalf, accused Mr Noonan and QUT of breaking all protocols for conducting research involving Aboriginal people... He said the film also breached recognised protocols for the filming of Aboriginal people.

New Zealand has a lot of Polynesian immigrants from Pacific islands -- such as the Cook Islands. What is said about them in the report mentioned below is common comment in NZ but mentioning it in public is obviously incorrect:

"An academic report describing Pacific Islanders as a drain on the economy is to be investigated by the Race Relations Commissioner. Commissioner Joris de Bres said today that the commission hosted a meeting yesterday attended by academics, community members and analysts from government departments. Significant concerns were raised over the academic rigour of the Massey University report, he told Radio New Zealand.

Mr de Bres, who will issue terms of reference for the investigation, said the report had resulted in a significant amount of prejudice vented over the internet and on talk-back radio. A Massey University spokesperson said the university welcomed the review and expected staff members to make submissions.

The report is part of a three-year study, Growing Pains: Evaluations and the Cost of Human Capital, based on data from the Economic Development Ministry, Labour Department and Pacific Island Affairs Ministry. Headed by economist Greg Clydesdale, of Massey University's management and international business department, the study is due to be presented at conference in Brazil in July.

The report said Pacific Island immigrants were less productive and less likely to contribute to economic growth. They had the highest unemployment in every age group, were less likely to start businesses, had lower rates of self-employment and were over-represented in crime statistics.

Sunday, May 25, 2008

More on G*ogle hypocrisy

As I noted on 21st, G*ogle is very reluctant to remove Islamist content from its YouTube service. They are perfectly entitled to do (or not do) that, of course. What is striking, however, is their rationale for their actions. They say:

"YouTube's community guidelines prohibit hate speech and ask users not to post videos that show someone getting hurt, attacked or humiliated.

How come therefore that:

""Terrorists riddle American soldiers with bullets and explosives while chanting "Allahu Akbar" or "God is the greatest" in videos on the popular G*ogle-owned video-sharing website, YouTube. With a quick search of the site, the following can be found:

IEDs detonate on U.S. soldiers in a pickup truck

Graphic video of numerous explosions killing Marines

A U.S. medic being gunned down by a terrorist

A Humvee explodes, killing five U.S. soldiers

Chemical weapons attacks

A video entitled "Fight to the End" featuring a series of violent explosions killing American troops

Clearly, G*ogle is saying one thing and doing another. What they do not admit but which their behavior clearly shows is that it is conservative content which they restrict. There are almost no restrictions for Leftists and Islamists. The restrictions apply only to conservatives and those who criticize Islam. G*ogle are, quite simply, political bigots.

Saturday, May 24, 2008

"County Court at Law Judge Brent Keis has received a public warning from the State Commission on Judicial Conduct for making racially insensitive comments to a black lawyer.

At a hearing in April 2007, Keis said that descendants of slaves who survived the perilous trip from Africa are "bigger and stronger athletes because weak slaves were thrown overboard and never made it to the Americas." ....

"Although Judge Keis insists that he did not intend his comments to be racially insensitive or offensive, it is clear that his remarks were inappropriate in the setting in which they occurred and that they could easily be misinterpreted by anyone unfamiliar with the judge," the ruling said.

He forgot that you must never joke about any black. They are far too sensitive for that.

We read:

"John Hopwood's May 18, 2008, Associated Content article, "Mike Huckabee Blows His Chances at Vice Presidency with Shameless Remark at N.R.A. Convention" which accused Mike Huckabee of both making a racist remark and being racist, raised the ire of many of the article's readers in the form of stern rebuffs in the article's reader comments. If any conclusions can be drawn from scoring the large number of reader comments the article has received, most readers disagreed with Hopwood that the likeable Huckabee's comments were racist.

Most of the reader comments defended Huckabee and were critical of Hopwood's conclusion that Huckabee had made a racist comment concerning Democratic presidential hopeful, Barack Obama. While addressing the National Rifle Association, according to Hopwood, "hearing a sound from backstage while giving his speech to the N.R.A. faithful, Huckabee, who has been noted for his wit by a generally fawning press, quipped, 'That was Barack Obama. He just tripped off a chair. He's getting ready to speak.' The audience began laughing at Huckabee's remark, and continued when he made the extraordinarily insensitive remark, 'Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor.' " The incident was reported in a brief story in the L.A. Times on May 17.

Sunday, Huckabee appeared on NBC's Meet the Press telling the moderator, Tim Russett, that, "it was a dumb, off-the-cuff remark." Huckabee also issued a statement on his website www.huckpac.com, saying, "I made an off-hand remark that was in no way intended to offend or disparage Sen. Obama. I apologize that my comments were offensive; that was never my intention."

Friday, May 23, 2008

Is it protected free speech to call people "liars and frauds who should be in jail"?

It could be, as long as the claim is well substantiated. Otherwise it is libel. But the claim appears to be extreme in the episode mentioned below -- where a professor was demoted for calling some government officials that:

"The university's independent report into the incident, part of which has been seen by HES, concluded that Dr Mees at a conference in August last year had effectively vilified then director of public transport Jim Betts and other government officers by making "derogatory and insulting" remarks. Dr Mees allegedly accused the officials of being "liars and frauds who should be in jail" over the preparation of report on public transport.

The report, by Monash University law professor Michael King, acknowledged some comments that Dr Mees had made valid points over the governments claimed that consultants report was independent when in fact parts of the report had been copied verbatim from as government memo. But the report found that Dr Mees went too far in his remarks. "Academics are entitled to be forthright in their views. But it isn't their role to make allegations of personal misconduct or criminal conduct in a public forum," the report said.

"A teenager is facing prosecution for using the word "cult" to describe the Church of Scientology. The unnamed 15-year-old was served the summons by City of London police when he took part in a peaceful demonstration opposite the London headquarters of the controversial religion. Officers confiscated a placard with the word "cult" on it from the youth, who is under 18, and a case file has been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service.

The decision to issue the summons has angered human rights activists and support groups for the victims of cults. The incident happened during a protest against the Church of Scientology on May 10. Demonstrators from the anti-Scientology group, Anonymous, who were outside the church's œ23m headquarters near St Paul's cathedral, were banned by police from describing Scientology as a cult by police because it was "abusive and insulting".

Writing on an anti-Scientology website, the teenager facing court said: "I brought a sign to the May 10th protest that said: 'Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult.' "'Within five minutes of arriving I was told by a member of the police that I was not allowed to use that word, and that the final decision would be made by the inspector." A policewoman later read him section five of the Public Order Act and "strongly advised" him to remove the sign. The section prohibits signs which have representations or words which are threatening, abusive or insulting.

The teenager refused to back down, quoting a 1984 high court ruling from Mr Justice Latey, in which he described the Church of Scientology as a "cult" which was "corrupt, sinister and dangerous". After the exchange, a policewoman handed him a court summons and removed his sign....

Liberty director, Shami Chakrabarti, said: "This barmy prosecution makes a mockery of Britain's free speech traditions. "After criminalising the use of the word 'cult', perhaps the next step is to ban the words 'war' and 'tax' from peaceful demonstrations?"

Ian Haworth, from the Cult Information Centre which provides advice for victims of cults and their families, said: "This is an extraordinary situation. If it wasn't so serious it would be farcical. The police's job is to protect and serve. Who is being served and who is being protected in this situation? I find it very worrying.

The City of London police came under fire two years ago when it emerged that more than 20 officers, ranging from constable to chief superintendent, had accepted gifts worth thousands of pounds from the Church of Scientology. The City of London Chief Superintendent, Kevin Hurley, praised Scientology for "raising the spiritual wealth of society" during the opening of its headquarters in 2006.

Thursday, May 22, 2008

A semi-setback for homosexuals

We read:

"Nationwide outrage against public school participation in the "gay"-friendly 2008 Day of Silence resulted in hundreds of students boycotting the observance and some administrators canceling pro-homosexual activities.

Parent and community protests against school involvement made all the difference, Linda Harvey, president of Mission America, told WND. "The Day of Silence Walk Out was extremely successful," she said. "In many high schools, hundreds of students stayed home. Here at Mission America, we had thousands of e-mails from both parents and schools, and more than 300 schools were taken off our initial list of those we believed would be sponsoring this pro-homosexual event."

Despite claims that the silent protest is organized by school-age children, Harvey said it is orchestrated by adults using local schools to portray homosexuality, bisexuality and transgender behaviors as lifestyles that are worthy of sympathy. She said activists claim to have been subjects of discrimination, and they try to portray them as a minority group, comparable to other racial, ethnic or religious groups.

"Homosexuality and these lifestyles are high-risk, dangerous and immoral behaviors," she said. "Homosexuality is not immutable. It is changeable, and it's something that shouldn't be promoted to kids."

I did not like the feel of this law from the beginning but I could not figure out at first what the problem was. The excerpt below points out that the law makes thought a crime -- and it does not even have to be your own thoughts. If someone else has a thought that they trace to something you did or said then YOU are the guilty party! It's like the old witch trials where a woman was burnt at the stake because some priest had an erotic dream about her:

We read:

"But the target is not child porn which is already totally illegal. The actual target is adult erotica which does not involve children. The new law criminalizes more than child porn -- which is already illegal. It criminalizes the assumption, appearance or belief that something is child porn. It specifically targets the individual who "advertises, promotes, presents, distributes or solicits . . . any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe" that the material is child porn.

Notice how widely that the law is written. A person can be arrested as a child pornographer is something they produce causes "another to believe" that it is child porn. It doesn't actually have to be child porn at all. All it has to do is give someone, somewhere, the impression that it might be.

What is illegal here is anything that "causes" another person to draw a conclusion. It makes producers of erotica potentially responsible for the assumptions of others. And since the material itself need not even exist, or actually contain illegal images of actual children, the fact that no child pornography may exist is not a defense. They have found a way to criminalize the possession of child porn without the defendant actually having to possess any child porn. What is illegal is not what they produce but the fact that their production caused someone else to perceive it as a child porn.

Notice that the crime is anyone who "advertises, promotes, presents, distributes or solicits" material that "reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe" that it is child porn. So District Attorney Billy Bob Biblebeater prosecutes local erotica outlets for selling Girls Gone Wild. His argument is that the term "girls" implies underaged females. And that is the formal definition of the term. It means "female child" or "young, immature woman".

The erotica shop owner can contend that he never thought the title implied that it involved children. But Mr. Biblebeater can note that the title alone "intended to cause another to believe" that it did. The shop owner can argue that the product never included any children at all. But that is no longer a defense since the crime is not related to whether the material actually contains children or not. The absence of any child pornography is no longer a defense for violating laws on child pornography.

Ever since Nabokov penned his novel the name Lolita has been synonymous for a underage temptress. Is having a character in the film name Lolita enough for a conviction? Does the name alone intend "to cause another to believe" that the character is underaged and therefore illegal?

In 1971 Wakefield Poole's gay erotic film Boys in the Sand opened in New York City and became an instant success. Poole earned his investment back almost in the first hour of release alone. No one in film was underage and it the advertising clearly implied it was about an adult male. But was the use of "boys" in the title an indication of an intention to market the film as child porn? If one person, seeing the ad thought it was, and went to the film believing he would see young boys in the film, would Poole have been guilty of a crime under this new law?

Would a particular costume in the film, or plot line be sufficient to get one arrested for child porn. Would a character dressed like a school girl or school boy be a crime under this law even if the actual actor was of legal age? Would shaved genitals, something some adults have done for years, be a crime under this law just because it could give another person the impression that the shaved actor is prepubescent even if the actor is not?

This idea of intending to cause others to believe something is so nebulous that you can't really get a grasp on it. Obviously if someone says: "I got some child porn for sale" that would be a crime even if they had nothing of the sort. Merely implying they had it would be a criminal offense. But what boundaries are there to this law to prevent it from being used by pro-censorship prosecutors who merely want to harass adult material?

Imagine a traffic cop with a similar loop hole. He could go to court and get someone convicted with this statement: "Your honor, the defendant actually never went over the speed limit. But he was driving a flashy red sports car. When I saw him he revved his engine and did speed up, though he stayed under the speed limit. But he caused me to believe that he was speeding. Therefore he violated the law on speeding."

What the law does is offer the censorship crowd opportunities. They can scour every film, advertisement, plot line, or appearance for anything that causes them to imagine that the item might involve someone underage. Since the person no longer has to actually be underage they have a blank check to use when and were they want. Even if they lose the cases they can bankrupt the people they prosecute. Yet not one single child would be protected, who wasn't already protected by the law. This law doesn't give real children additional protection. But it does give protection to non-existent, imaginary children. And it provides opportunity to the would-be censors. When we consider the kind of people who have been put on the Court by Mr. Bush we can't look to them to rectify this problem -- especially since they were the ones that have put their stamp of approval on the law.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Google reluctant to take down Islamic sites

If only they were as reluctant to delete anti-Islamic sites from their news feed

We read:

"The chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee today asked Google, the parent company of the popular online video-sharing site, YouTube, to "immediately remove content produced by Islamist terrorist organizations" from YouTube and prevent similar content from reappearing. However, the company immediately refused to comply with his request.

Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) made the request in a letter to Eric Schmidt, the chairman of the board and chief executive officer at Google, in which he said that YouTube "unwittingly, permits Islamist terrorist groups to maintain an active, pervasive and amplified voice despite military setbacks or successful operations by the law enforcement and intelligence communities." ....

However, YouTube in a response this afternoon, said taking those actions was not so simple and refused to remove all videos mentioning or featuring these groups without consideration of whether the videos were legal, nonviolent or non-hate speech videos.

"While we respect and understand his views, YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone's right to express unpopular points of view," the company said. "We believe that YouTube is a richer and more relevant platform for users precisely because it hosts a diverse range of views, and rather than stifle debate, we allow our users to view all acceptable content and make up their own minds."

The statement thanked Lieberman for alerting the company last week of several videos which violated the company's community guidelines and that have subsequently been removed. However, the statement said that "most of the videos, which did not contain violent or hate speech content, were not removed because they do not violate our Community Guidelines."

YouTube's community guidelines prohibit hate speech and ask users not to post videos that show someone getting hurt, attacked or humiliated. According to the YouTube Community Guidelines, users can flag videos they feel are inappropriate, which may then be removed from the site by the company after review. ...

YouTube noted in its statement that hundreds of thousands of videos are uploaded to the site daily. "The government can't get involved in suppressing videos if the content is not illegal," Morris said, explaining that such a policy would likely face stiff opposition from advocates of First Amendment rights.

The principles enunciated by Google are not really the question here. Leftists all say the same when sites that they favor are under challenge. It's the rubbery application of those principles that is the problem. Specifically, it is the failure to apply the same criteria to Islamic and anti-Islamic utterances that is the problem. It seems to be as hard to convict Islamic sites and posts of "hate speech" as it is easy to convict Christian sites and posts of "hate speech"

I suppose this makes sense: Fraudulent offers to provide child pornography are rulled illegal. There was no dispute that providing actual child pornography was illegal. SCOTUS was however over-ruling an appeal court judgment and the dissenting justices had some interesting first amendment arguments:

We read:

""The US Supreme Court has upheld an effort by Congress to make it illegal to offer or promote child pornography - even when the photographs being offered or promoted don't really exist or involve real children. In a 7-to-2 decision announced on Monday, the high court said the law was a constitutional effort by Congress to protect innocent children from a thriving form of abuse.

The majority justices upheld the law even though it restricted certain kinds of speech that critics said must be protected by the First Amendment. Instead, the high court said Congress had struck the correct balance in passing the anti-child-pornography law."

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

A**easing the A**easers

We read:

"The politically correct Left has declared yet more of our natural language off limits to all except themselves. Conservatives, it appears, may no longer under any circumstances apply the terms appease or appeasement to members of the Democratic Party and especially not to presidential candidates or other leaders of that party.

When our president stood there resolute before the world and forthrightly declared that negotiating with those who publicly assert their dedication to Israel's annihilation is an exercise in appeasement comparable to Chamberlain's deadly pussyfooting with Adolph Hitler, it was enough to send the entire dumpster-diving media into a frothing fit.

How dare he call Obama an appeaser? How dare he imply that Democrats are the party of appeasement? Never mind that he didn't, the most important result of their rabid reaction is that it puts us on notice how quickly words and expressions are being removed from the general American lexicon by those champions of free speech, the Liberal Left.

Pro-Abortion Expression Permitted, Pro-Life Forbidden at a major Australian University

We read:

"The Student Union at Queensland University have shown themselves to be opposed to differing opinion and free speech like many other secular universities around the world.

The school's Newman Society has been censored and threatened with disaffiliation from the student union because union leaders believed the group's "pro-woman" and "pro-pregnancy" campaign took a stand against abortion. The poster and leaflets, displayed on a booth outside the student cafe, did not mention abortion but featured a photograph of an eight week old child in the womb, and offered compassion and support for young women who might find themselves facing the difficult challenge of an unplanned pregnancy.

Elise Nally, third-year applied science student and Newman Society secretary, said in a report by The Australian that the union's action was totalitarian and against free speech. "I'd like to know what laws we've broken," Nally said. "The union is acting like a dictator...."

Monday, May 19, 2008

The Finnquisition

Canada is not alone in using the power of the government to suppress political speech. A blogger is on trial at the moment in Finland for making statements similar to those of the song mentioned in the post below. The song was dealt with in a private way -- by an employer firing someone. The involvement of government is much more threatening -- because a government can deprive you of your liberty completely, by imprisoning you.

Below is a section of the trial transcript that gives you the idea of what is going on:

"Prosecutor: You write, "For the Africans, looting, rape, nepotism, corruption, clan warfare, superstition and impulsive homicide are business as usual". What is this claim based on?

Blogger: On well-known facts. There are a lot of dictators and wars in Africa. There was a genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s due to intertribal conflicts between the Hutus and the Tutsis. Apart from the Darfur crisis in Sudan, there was also a civil war in Sudan between the Arab Muslim government in the north and the black Christians and other non-Muslims in the south. In Congo, the dictators Mobutu Sese Seko and Laurent Kabila killed millions of people. In Zimbabwe, the dictator Robert Mugabe has killed hundreds of thousands of people. Idi Amin, the dictator of Uganda, killed hundreds of thousands of people. I could go on and on about this. Don't you ever read the newspapers or watch the news on TV?

"94 WYSP morning host Kidd Chris has been fired over a racist song performed by an in-studio guest in March. WYSP program director John Cook also lost his job over the fallout from the song "Schwoogies," sung to the tune of Blondie's "Call Me," that was performed March 21 in studio by a guest named Lady Gash.

"We found the song to be highly offensive and completely inappropriate for broadcast on our airwaves. When senior management of the station learned that it had been played, they took immediate steps to prevent it from ever appearing on the station again," CBS Radio spokeswoman Karen Mateo told us moments ago. "At the same time, we launched an extensive internal investigation into the situation including a thorough review of the editorial controls and systems we have in place to prevent this type of content from airing. We instituted additional educational training for the station, and have taken appropriate disciplinary action, including termination of the individuals involved." Mateo declined to comment on whether Kidd Chris would be paid out the life of his contract, which was to last another three years.

The forbidden words are given in full at the link above, which is sort of interesting. It is OK to print them but not sing them?? In case they get taken down, I have also reposted them here.

To me what the song says is just a colloquial but not unreasonable commentary on the high rate of black crime and the lifestyle associated with that -- but the main issue is presumably the particular words used to make that commentary. I, of course, do not agree that ANY word is too offensive to be uttered. I am of the old "sticks and stones" persuasion. But I seem to be in a very small minority on that.

The academic objection would be that the song constitutes stereotyping -- but the thing is a song, not a dissertation -- and the song does not in any case say "ALL blacks". It leaves quantification up to the listener. And if you mentally insert "some" or "many", what the song says is defensible as a truth claim. But some truths may not be uttered these days, of course.

Sunday, May 18, 2008

Dutch cartoonist update

We read:

"The Dutch authorities have arrested the cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot (a pseudonym. Nekschot means deathblow, litt: “shot in the back of the neck” [An interview with Nekschot here]). The judicial authorities in Amsterdam said yesterday that the cartoonist was arrested as a suspect for the criminal offense of “publishing cartoons which are discriminating for Muslims and people with dark skin.”

The cartoonist was arrested on Tuesday, while the police searched his house for “discriminating evidence.” His computer, backups, usb sticks, mobile phone and a number of drawings were confiscated.

Nekschot was released two days later but it is possible that he will be charged following a complaint in 2005 by the Dutch imam Abdul Jabbar van de Ven, an indigenous Dutchman who converted to Islam.

"A federal appeals court has ruled that MySpace.com is immune from a lawsuit over the alleged sexual assault of a teenage girl by a man she met on the social networking website. The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals' decision today upholds the dismissal of the lawsuit.

The Texas girl's family had sued MySpace and its parent company, News Corp, claiming that MySpace did not protect young users from sexual predators.

The court says federal law bars such lawsuits against web-based services like MySpace.

"Displaying a noose with the intention of threatening or harassing someone is now a felony under New York law - punishable by up to four years in prison.

Gov. David Paterson signed the legislation Thursday. It was proposed after the highly publicized "Jena 6" case in Louisiana and elsewhere in the country and some cases in New York.

Last September, a noose was found hanging in a locker room at the Hempstead Police Department on Long Island. The next month, a noose was found hanging on a black professor's door at Columbia University.

The [far-Leftist] Southern Poverty Law Center documented nearly 50 incidents of nooses displayed in high schools, workplaces and other venues around the country after the "Jena 6" incident. Normally, the group hears of a dozen or so cases in a year, according to its Web site. [And how many of those were placed by attention-seeking Leftists?]

The display of a noose was added to an existing law that makes it a crime of first-degree aggravated harassment to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm a victim chosen for reasons of bias. Displaying swastikas on property without permission from the owner and setting fire to a cross in public view are already included in the statute.

The conduct should be punished regardless of that, he said. The governor recommended a second change - eliminating the part of the law that allows a property owner to give permission for a swastika or noose to be displayed for an intimidating purpose.

Saturday, May 17, 2008

Dutch cartoonist arrested under hate speech law

We read:

"A Dutch publisher says a well-known political cartoonist has been arrested on suspicion of violating hate speech laws with his work. A spokeswoman for Uitgeverij Xtra said Friday that the cartoonist who works under the pseudonym Gregorius Nekschot was arrested Tuesday and held overnight before being released.

"He was arrested with a great show of force, by around 10 policemen," the spokeswoman said. She asked that her name not be used because the cartoonist and publisher have received death threats.

Nekschot is known primarily for cartoons mocking Muslims and leftists, though the spokeswoman said he is a satirist who targets "any strong ideology". Amsterdam public prosecutors did not return repeated calls seeking comment.

"There is a form of hate speech that hasn't been addressed properly, and that is the teaching of exclusivity of salvation: the idea that "we" will be with God after death and "they" won't. This is spiritual terrorism, the ultimate hate speech, and there have been few things more destructive of peace and freedom the world over. Maybe it served humanity once; it doesn't anymore.

It's probably already illegal in Canada. Lots of clergy have been prosecuted there for one thing or another. That salvation is a basic claim of Christianity cuts no ice these days of course: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"? No more, buster! John 14:6 can go jump these days.

Friday, May 16, 2008

"A high-ranking University of Toledo administrator has been fired for speaking out. UT's associate vice president of human resources was put on paid administrative leave about 2 weeks ago after writing an opinion column in the Toledo Free Press.

Crystal Dixon just received verbal notification from the University of Toledo that she has been fired. It's all for speaking her opinion in a copy of the Toledo Free Press.....

Late this afternoon 13abc spoke with Crystal Dixon. She says her termination is clearly a violation of her 1st amendment right for free speech, religious discrimination, and race discrimination. Now she is pointing the finger at University leadership

I suspect that this homosexual pandering is going to cost the university a lot of money one way or another. They will probably buy her off eventually. She's black so that will help her. Blacks have much more free speech than the rest of us do. Only homosexuals trump them.

Some British documentary makers went around British mosques undercover and filmed various Mullahs inciting violence against unbelievers. The resulting film was shown on British TV.

So what did the police do? What the Mullahs said was clearly in breach of British law against preaching violence so the police went and rounded up all the Mullahs concerned -- right? In your dreams! The cops prosecuted the film-makers instead! They said the film stirred up hatred. It was a truly Orwellian inversion of what actually happened -- that it was the Mullahs who were stirring up hatred.

Anyway the wheels of justice eventually ground down the nonsense and the police were rightly sued over their perverse actions. They have now paid a big sum in compensation and apologized for their actions.

But, amid all the furore, the Muslim hate-speech has remained protected. It appears that none of the Muslim hate-speakers recorded in the film have been prosecuted or will be prosecuted. The main aim of the police exercise -- protecting Muslims from the standards that others have to obey -- has been achieved.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Freedom of expression has a win in Sweden

You do normally have to go to a higher court to get such freedom in Sweden:

"A local politician from the Malmo suburb of Burlov has been acquitted of charges of agitation against an ethnic group. Dahn Pettersson of the local Allianspartiet had previously been convicted by the Malmo District Court and fined the equivalent of 100 days' pay after he submitted a legislative proposal to the Burlov town council connecting heroin smuggling with Kosovo Albanians residing permanently in Sweden.

But the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's decision and ruled instead that the proposal didn't prove Pettersson intended to disrespect Kosovo Albanians as a group....

According to the Court of Appeals, the text of the proposal could be read as saying that Kosovo Albanians are especially inclined to be involved with the heroin trade and therefore cause homelessness and other societal problems.

Ultimately, the court choose to release Pettersson, arguing that freedom of expression and the right to criticize current policy is important, especially when it comes to political debate.

"A judge has ordered the social networking site Facebook to turn over information identifying the person who set up a fake profile in the name of a high school dean. Marion Superior Court Judge Robyn Moberly issued the order Friday, a day after Roncalli High School Dean of Students Tim Puntarelli sued the Web site, alleging harassment and identity theft by the unidentified creator of the profile.

Facebook, based in Palo Alto, Calif., removed the fraudulent profile from its site after Roncalli officials reported it last month. A Facebook spokeswoman declined comment to The Indianapolis Star. The AP sent an e-mail seeking comment from Facebook. Facebook's privacy policy requires a court order or subpoena before it will release identifying information.

The lawsuit said the posting included "pictures and messages inappropriate for a dean of students to send to a student." Moberly's emergency order required Facebook to preserve all information from the deleted profile....

Similar profiles have been the subject of lawsuits in other states and have led to debate over whether they are defamation or parody protected by the First Amendment.

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

MN: Three suspended for not standing for pledge

We read:

"Three small-town eighth-graders in Minnesota were suspended by their principal for not standing Thursday morning for the Pledge of Allegiance, violating a district policy that the principal now says may soon be reworded to protect free speech rights. ... The head of the Minnesota American Civil Liberties Union said that the school's actions against the students are unconstitutional, and his office informed the district of that today in a strongly worded letter."

The ACLU is clearly right on this one. The case above does not seem to involve religion but various groups (e.g. Quakers) have religious objections to the pledge so the first amendment clearly protects their freedom of religion. I am rather surprised that the pledge has lasted so long, given its plain violation of the first amendment in such cases. A voluntary pledge is OK of course.

"When members of an anti-illegal immigration group offered to sponsor litter cleanup on local roads, they never imagined California officials would offer them an Adopt-a-Highway stretch near a Border Patrol checkpoint on Interstate 5, the main artery carrying illegal migrants north from the U.S.-Mexico border.

On Friday, lawyers for the San Diego Minutemen told a federal judge that the state had no right to rescind the offer after state legislators complained to the California Department of Transportation. The group asked that its blue Adopt-a-Highway sign be put back where it stood without incident for about six weeks until the agency removed it in January. "We were moved to silence our message in response to pressure from the open border advocates and the Latino caucus," said Minutemen attorney Robert Fuselier. "It all comes down to one thing: We can't have our speech because if we do, people who don't like it might become unruly and unlawful."

Attorneys for the state contend the sign was removed because of concerns that demonstrators or vandals could create safety hazards for the 160,000 drivers who pass the checkpoint daily and for Minutemen volunteers collecting litter by the roadside.

Hayes asked whether the state would continue moving the Minutemen sign if protests followed it. "It would seem you're saying you're allowing the people who are unhappy with the message to dictate who can be in the program," the judge said. "We can do that," Benowitz responded. "It is not a public forum."

Courts have found otherwise. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Ku Klux Klan after Missouri officials sought to bar the group from its Adopt-a-Highway program under a regulation prohibiting groups that deny membership based on race or with a documented history of violence.

Monday, May 12, 2008

... but your query looks similar to automated requests from a computer virus or spyware application. To protect our users, we can't process your request right now.

We'll restore your access as quickly as possible, so try again soon. In the meantime, if you suspect that your computer or network has been infected, you might want to run a virus checker or spyware remover to make sure that your systems are free of viruses and other spurious software.

If you're continually receiving this error, you may be able to resolve the problem by deleting your Google cookie and revisiting Google. For browser-specific instructions, please consult your browser's online support center.

If your entire network is affected, more information is available in the Google Web Search Help Center.

We apologize for the inconvenience, and hope we'll see you again on Google.

It is hard to imagine how a search for something on this blog would look like virus output but who knows?

"An Italian-born 47-year-old restaurant cook who pleaded guilty to a crime of ethnic intimidation was sentenced today to five years probation and ordered to complete 150 hours of community service in Camden. Superior Court Judge William Cook also ordered Claudio Diventura to write an essay on the evils of racism.

Diventura was arrested after fingerprint analysis showed he had handled a sign with a racist slur written on it. The sign, white lettering on brown siding, was posted in September on a utility pole in Sicklerville and reported to police by a man who was in town visiting a relative. Investigation by the Winslow Township police showed the siding matched some removed from Diventura's home in the first block of South Grove Street in Sicklerville.

Diventura, represented by defense attorney Leonard Baker, did not give any reason for hanging the sign. He apologized to several black court officials who are assigned to Cook's courtroom.

I can imagine that he might be prosecuted for putting up a sign on public property but it seems that the offense was what was said on the sign. Contrary to what Leftists say, SCOTUS has held that "hate speech" is free speech so I suspect that an appeal against this would succeed.

Nobody seems to be saying what was on the sign but, judging from the apology to blacks present in the court, it was something generic like "Africa for the Africans". That would certainly be protected. If however it was an explicit threat, other laws might apply.

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Mark Steyn defying the Canadian thought police

Mark on Hugh Hewitt's show:

"I’ve got, as you know, these outstanding human rights complaints. Ontario, which ruled that it didn’t have jurisdiction to try Macleans Magazine and myself, nevertheless said you know, we don’t have jurisdiction to toss these guys in jail, but we would if we could. That was absolutely extraordinary. They said if we had put this on a sign rather than in a magazine, they would have jurisdiction to prosecute us. So I actually, I’ve actually taped the magazine article to a sign, and I’m going to deliver it to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and invite the relevant thought police to actually go ahead with their threat. I mean, if it’s just the medium, I say bring it on, as John Kerry would say.

Somewhat to my discomfort I have in the past defended both Bill Clinton and Hillary on this blog. It now seems to fall to me to defend America's great empty vessel as well.

Obama said recently (See e.g. here) that McCain had lost his "bearings". That has widely been interpreted as a slur on McCain's age. Perhaps I am missing something but I do not see that at all. Anyone of any age can lose their bearings at times. I have certainly lost my bearings on some occasions when I have been driving around a strange city and one can certainly lose one's bearings in the course of a long argument.

If Obama had said that McCain was losing his "marbles" that would certainly be an accusation of mental incompetence but I cannot see it for "bearings". I actually think that what Obama said was part of his usual politeness. I think he was just saying that McCain was making a forgivable mistake.

"Bearings" was I think originally a nautical term and referred to the direction that needed to be steered in navigation at sea.

Saturday, May 10, 2008

Must not desecrate Mexican flag

You can stomp Old Glory all you like. One of Obama's buddies did it not so long ago (See above). But trash the Mexican flag and the ACLU wants in

"A high school student says he may file a lawsuit against a physical education teacher who took a Mexican flag he had brought for Cinco de Mayo and put it in the garbage. Clint Straatman denies Froylan Camelo's version of events but said he took the flag Monday because "white kids" might have hurt the 16-year-old. He said he put it in a garbage can because he had no place else to keep it.

Camelo said he was changing into gym clothes at Minico High School in Rupert when Straatman told him, "Give me the flag." "I said, 'What's the problem?'" Camelo, speaking in Spanish, told The Times-News of Twin Falls. "He said, 'The problem is that we are in the United States and not in Mexico.' He grabbed it from me. He threw the flag in the garbage can."

Camelo said he then took the undamaged flag out of the garbage. He said he's been contacted by the American Civil Liberties Union and is considering a lawsuit against Straatman.

Camelo and others brought Mexican flags to the south-central Idaho school to celebrate Cinco de Mayo, the May 5 recognition of Mexico's victory over the French army on that day in 1862. About a third of the student body is Hispanic.

Just a small note about Google censorship. The picture above seems to have been censored from their image cache. I did a Google image search for it and could not find it -- despite it being much in the news lately. In response to the search terms "Ayers" with "flag" it should have been at the top of the page. I guess it is pretty red-hot so Google seem to have done their best to keep it from our eyes.

Maybe after they read this they will restore it. They do seem to respond to criticisms I make of them. I guess they have a team monitoring all adverse mentions of them. They probably search for combinations of the terms "Google" and "evil" -- as critics of Google often mock their proclaimed policy of not being evil.

"A religious student group claims that Shippensburg University violated its free-speech rights by threatening to shut it down because it requires members to be Christians and its president to be a man. The Christian Fellowship of Shippensburg University alleges in a federal lawsuit filed Wednesday that the state-owned university violated a 2004 settlement of a separate lawsuit over the school's student code of conduct.

In that earlier case, a civil liberties group sued the university over a provision in the student code that prohibited "acts of intolerance" including racist, sexist and homophobic speech. University officials said they would revise the code after a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction in 2004 barring the enforcement of that provision.

Steven Aden, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom, said the latest lawsuit stems from Christian Fellowship's expulsion from campus by the university's Student Senate in February in a dispute over its membership and leadership requirements,

The Student Senate's vice president later told the group that it could resume operating as a recognized student organization, but members still worry about the prospect of further sanctions, Aden said. "The club is under this cloud of suspicion, whereby their practices are being monitored to make sure they don't step out of line," Aden said.

Friday, May 09, 2008

"A student senate leader at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point has told pro-life display supporters they have no right to express their opinion on the volatile issue of abortion.

"It's not your responsibility," Roderick King, a sophomore at the school and member of its student senate, shouted at those who had assembled a display of white crosses in the campus lawn - with university permission. "This [abortion] is a right. You don't have the right to challenge it. Write a paper. Do NOT! Do NOT put this in front of all of us. This is not your right," he hollered, grabbing crosses with both hands, yanking them from the ground, and throwing them to the side.

The campus group Pointers for Life had put up the Cemetery of the Innocents display last week, then spent the next morning repairing the damage from someone who had vandalized the field of rows of white crosses representing the victims of abortion.

Then they were trashed a second time, only this time the pro-life campaigners were armed with a video camera. As students looked on, King led a group of angry students by walking through the rows of crosses and plucking them from the ground and tossing them. Campus security was summoned, and when an officer arrived, most of the students left. King did not.

"The freedom of speech does not cover these signs and symbols," he said, according to a report from Students for Life.... The video shows King's confrontational attitude even with campus security. "I don't care if they have the university's approval," he told the officer. "They're actually making the worst statement here."

But worse is the fact that despite the students' complaint, the Student Government Association has declined to take action.

Some strange reasoning at the University of North Dakota after swastikas were plastered up in several places. I guess Jews (Sorry: "Zionists") are not allowed to be offended:

"UND President Charles Kupchella has condemned the racist and anti-Semitic graffiti, saying such actions should not be tolerated on a university campus. But members of the school's Jewish Student Organization have criticized Kupchella for declining to describe the graffiti as a "hate crime" or to describe the image found in West Hall, which looks like a scribbled out swastika with one axis facing the wrong direction.

Thursday, May 08, 2008

NY: Must not allege affirmative action!

Leftists go to great lengths to give preference to blacks but you must not say that they give preference to blacks!

"The controversy erupted after Paladino claimed at an education forum two weeks ago that James A. Williams was hired as school superintendent because he is black. Williams has declined to comment, but a former School Board member who sat on a search panel that recommended finalists said Paladino's comments were "totally inaccurate." Betty Jean Grant said Williams' race was not a factor in the process.

At one point during Tuesday's meeting, Paladino seemed to concede the possibility that factors other than race might have figured in Williams' hiring. But he stood by his original statement when a reporter asked him for clarification. "I'm not backing away from anything, because I spoke the truth," Paladino said. He added that the state should step in to try to "straighten up the incompetence" of a school system that he contends is squandering hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Council's Legislation Committee delayed action on a bill sponsored by Davis and Masten Council Member Demone A. Smith asking the state to ban people who engaged in "racially offensive" conduct from obtaining public leases or contracts. Some Council members say that might be unconstitutional. But Smith said he sees nothing wrong with his push to "ban people who deep down don't like the people that they're serving."

"The publisher of controversial videogame Grand Theft Auto IV is suing the Chicago Transit Authority for allegedly bowing to pressure and pulling advertisements for the game.

Take-Two Interactive Software accused the transit authority of violating its freedom of speech and contractual rights in the Manhattan Federal Court overnight after ads for Grand Theft Auto IV disappeared without explanation.

The software company accused Chicago Transit Authority and its sales agent, Titan Outdoor, of violating a $300,000 ad campaign agreement that included running posters for the game on the sides of buses and transit display spaces for six weeks between April and June.

The ads were removed after a news report that questioned why the ad campaign was allowed to run in light of a recent wave of violent crimes in Chicago, just days after they were revealed, the suit said.

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

"In the column in The Toledo Free Press, Dixon asserted that gay people can change their sexual orientation and questioned how gay people could ever be considered "civil rights victims."

Wrote Dixon: "As a Black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo's Graduate School, an employee and business owner, I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are `civil rights victims.' Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a Black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended. Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle...."

Dixon also cited as evidence for her position "irrefutable" data showing higher than average salaries of gay people, and she cited religious teachings. "There is a divine order. God created human kind male and female (Genesis 1:27). God created humans with an inalienable right to choose. There are consequences for each of our choices, including those who violate God's divine order. It is base human nature to revolt and become indignant when the world or even God Himself, disagrees with our choice that violates His divine order," she wrote. "Jesus Christ loves the sinner but hates the sin (John 8:1-11.) Daily, Jesus Christ is radically transforming the lives of both straight and gay folks and bringing them into a life of wholeness: spiritually, psychologically, physically and even economically. That is the ultimate right."

While Dixon did not identify herself as the university's chief HR official, she referenced university policies and her job is well known among those who work at the university.

The university's anti-bias policies explicitly state that discrimination protections cover sexual orientation, and university officials have condemned anti-gay discrimination. In addition, while university officials have said that they are working to obtain partner benefits for gay employees, some have criticized the university for not doing enough in that regard.

A spokesman for the university confirmed that she was on paid leave because of the column. There may be further action, the spokesman said, following a meeting between Dixon and Lloyd Jacobs, president of the university.... Equality Toledo, a gay rights organization, has called on the university to dismiss Dixon.

"A political cartoon circulated at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee depicting a prominent national conservative author last week is sparking a free expression debate across the nation. David Horowitz spoke at UWM Thursday evening, drawing supporters and protesters, which resulted in a dialogue over a cartoon he is calling anti-Semitic.

In an interview with The Badger Herald, Horowitz said the depiction of him with a hooked nose by the Muslim Student Association in Milwaukee was inappropriate for a campus organization to circulate, but it was still protected under the First Amendment. "I haven't asked anybody to be outlawed or put in jail," Horowitz said. "Sure, it's free speech. It's just inappropriate for a campus. I don't think the university should have banned it from being posted, but had that been a cartoon on blacks or gays, there would have been hell to pay - there should be one standard rule."

Horowitz said he took more issue with how UWM's MSA allegedly tore down 2,000 of the posters promoting his event.... Horowitz said universities should have a "zero-tolerance policy for those who disrupt or interrupt invited speakers" since all sides of issues should be able to be discussed in a civil way. He pointed to his October visit to UW-Madison as a model example as opposed to Milwaukee, where 16 individuals were escorted out.

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

Finger pointing now criminal

We read:

"The 60-year-old Vietnam veteran and former Marine was arrested at his home Tuesday and charged with two counts of disorderly conduct after two village trustees complained that, during a heated meeting, Kachka pointed his finger at them while wearing a shirt with a Marine Corps insignia that said, "Don't Move. If You Run, You'll Only Die Tired."

Trustees allege Kachka's thumb was raised and his index finger extended, as though he were firing a gun.

"A discussion on religion, homosexuality and therapy that had been scheduled during the American Psychiatric Association's annual meeting in Washington has been shut down following an attack by a "gay" publication on some of the people planning to participate.

The symposium called "Homosexuality and Therapy: The Religion Dimension," had been in the plans for months at the APA convention in Washington, and was to feature advocates for homosexuality including New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson of the Episcopal church and was to be moderated by Harvard psychiatrist John Peteet.

Others scheduled to be on the podium included Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton, who has studied related issues intensively, and Rev. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

But the event, scheduled Monday, has been yanked from the schedule, according to the APA, because of the "misinformation and rhetoric" that was circulating about the issue.

Peter LaBarbera, of Americans for Truth, said the reaction to a plan to talk "shows the intellectual shallowness of the gay side." "They're afraid of a debate," he said, noting it wouldn't be correct to "paint Warren Throckmorton as the religious right." "The gay activists don't want to admit ex-gays exist, when they clearly do," he said.

Monday, May 05, 2008

"The Ontario Human Rights Commission announced yesterday it had dismissed a complaint about allegedly Islamophobic articles in Maclean's magazine because it lacked jurisdiction over printed material.

At the same time, however, the commission denounced the newsweekly for publishing articles that were "inconsistent with the spirit" of the Ontario Human Rights Code, and doing "serious harm" to Canadian society by "promoting societal intolerance" and disseminating "destructive, xenophobic opinions."

"When the media writes, it should exercise great caution that it's not promoting stereotypes that will adversely impact on identifiable groups," chief commissioner Barbara Hall said in an interview. "I think one needs to be very careful when one speaks in generalities, that in fact one is speaking factually about all the people in a particular group." ....

The complaint, brought by the Canadian Islamic Congress and a group of law students, was about a selection of news articles, columns and a book review about Islam and Muslims published between January 2005 and July 2007. Two similar complaints remain active; one is to be heard by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal in June, and the other is before the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The Ontario complaint was rejected because the relevant portions of Ontario Human Rights Code only address discrimination via signs or symbols, not printed material.

"Recent government policy memoranda, circulating through the national counter-terrorism and diplomatic community, establishes a new "speech code" for the lexicon in the war on terror, as reported by the Associated Press and now available in the public domain .

These new "speech codes" recommended that analysts and policy makers avoid the terms jihad or jihadist or mujhadid or "al-Qaida movement" and replace them with "extremists" and by extension other non-specific terms.

The use of these "new words" and rejection of the "old words" is ostensibly designed to avoid legitimating al-Qaida and its followers while mollifying the sensitivities of the larger Muslim community

Sunday, May 04, 2008

No respect for free speech or intellectual diversity at Smith College

Smith college is an elite Massachusetts liberal arts college for women. We read:

"Last night Ryan Sorba, an "anti-homosexual activist" spoke at Smith College. Sorba, the author of the upcoming book, "The Born Gay Hoax," (yes, seriously) can been seen in action here. The awesome feminists of Smith forced Sorba out after a mere twenty minutes of speaking, when he was drowned out by protesters.

The above quote is from a feminist site. Their silence over the treatment of women in Muslim countries has long ago revealed that feminism is just a mask for far Leftism these days and the above certainly confirms that. Christians who are critical of homosexuality are fair game and must be shouted down. Muslims (as in Iran) who actually kill homosexuals are just "misunderstood".

A commenter here reasonably asks how the feminists would feel if they were denied the right to be heard in a similar way. The shrieks and squeals would resound to high Heaven.

"The Tories continue to boil in hot water after a Conservative, Calgary MP and Secretary of State for Multiculturalism Jason Kenney, was caught making insensitive and racist comments regarding Sikhs. A recording from 2000 has resurfaced that has Kenney suggesting that Sikhs will use "the race card" to win arguments.

In the audio recording of a conference call, Kenny says: "How do we know that this isn't overheated Sikhs using the race card, which they so often do when their credentials are being questioned?"

"I did use those remarks in a particular context and I don't think they were appropriate. I expressed regret at the time, I do so again," said Kenney. "I've devoted much of my time in public life to promoting the active involvement of Canadians from diverse backgrounds in our political institutions."

Liberal MP for Mississauga-Brampton South Navdeep Bains says that this is just a reminder to Canadians that this party (Conservatives) says one thing behind closed doors and another in public. "These attitudes are racist and insensitive. .."

Saturday, May 03, 2008

Black British soldier sues over 'humiliating' nickname

We read:

"British soldier Kerry Hylton is suing the army because of the embarrassing nickname given to him by fellow troops. Hylton claims he has been "demeaned'' by the nickname "Paris'', after the notorious blonde American socialite and Hilton hotel empire heiress. He is suing for race discrimination, alleging that his fellow soldiers ignored orders to stop calling him Paris.

The Daily Express newspaper reported that Hylton, a chef with the Welsh Guards, finds the nickname offensive because he considers Paris Hilton "a white woman with a low reputation''. The Jamaica-born 33-year-old also alleged he was called several racist names at his barracks in London. An employment tribunal in London is expected to hear his case next month."

The University of California at Irvine has just got a new law school. Heading it is Prof. Erwin Chemerinsky. Below is an excerpt from a report about him:

"I got to witness UCI Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky publicly address for the first time the clash between Muslim and Jewish students. This is significant not only because Chemerinsky has immediately become one of Orange County's highest-profile academics but because the issue affects him so personally: He is a Jew, and he is moving his family to on-campus faculty housing. Over the last few years, UCI has acquired a reputation in some circles as a place where Jews feel unwelcome because of the hate-filled speech of some speakers brought in by Muslim students.

The moment rumors started circulating last summer about Chemerinsky's possible appointment as dean, he started getting e-mails asking if he knew about Jewish complaints against UCI. "In March," he said, "I spoke at a program for Jewish leaders in Los Angeles, and though my talk was on the new UCI law school, most of the questions were about these complaints against UCI. Soon after, I received literally dozens of messages concerning a self-appointed outside group's conclusion that Jews should not attend UCI."

Chemerinsky looked into it. He concluded "there have been speakers on campus who have said offensive, sometimes highly offensive things against Israel and against Jews. But I also learned that there has not been violence, or threats of violence, or incidents of harassment, or arrests, or even the need for disciplinary proceedings for inappropriate conduct by students."

He noted that the U.S. Office of Civil Rights concluded there was not a hostile environment for Jews on campus and that the leaders of five on-campus Jewish-student groups have issued a joint statement saying the same thing.

Acknowledging he's still an outsider (he doesn't move to O.C. until next month to prepare for the first class in 2009), he said UCI has so far done the right thing. "My strong sense is that the university has properly allowed - and must continue to allow - speech that is distasteful, offensive, and even extremist. Unfortunately its critics, including some in the Jewish community, sometimes fail to realize that allowing such speech on the campus of a public university is required by the First Amendment."

However, he said, "UCI must continue to condemn hate speech in all its forms and be sure that no one ever is harassed, or made to feel unwelcome based on religion or ethnicity or race or gender or sexual orientation or any other characteristic."

So there has to be actual violence before Muslim behaviour is condemned! A pity Christians cannot get that sort of permissiveness when they note what the Bible says about homosexuality!

And nobody must be "made to feel unwelcome based on religion or ethnicity". So I guess that the furious slanders of Jews and Israel emanating from Muslim students don't make Jews feel unwelcome! You could have fooled me!

The galoot is just another Jew who thinks that the antisemites won't ever come for him if he is nice to them. They thought that in 1930s Germany too.

Friday, May 02, 2008

"A case triggered by a school district's instructions to students to "shut up" if they held religious beliefs that did not support the practice of homosexuality is being appealed to the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Officials with the Alliance Defense Fund have confirmed they are taking the case involving Timothy Morrison to the next level after a panel decided against a judicial ruling endorsing the student's First Amendment rights in the dispute with the Boyd County, Ky., Board of Education.

"Christian students shouldn't be prohibited from expressing their beliefs," ADF Senior Legal Counsel Joel Oster said. "The school adopted a policy that prohibited students from sharing their beliefs that homosexual behavior was wrong simply because others might find the message insulting.

"If students violated this policy, they not only faced suspension, they could also be turned over to the police," Oster said. "Several students, including Timothy, chose not to speak rather than face such dire consequences. Timothy is entitled to a judicial ruling vindicating his rights."

Colorado College Denies Appeal of Students Responsible for `Violent' Parody

Laughing at feminists is "violence":

"Colorado College has denied student Chris Robinson's appeal of its finding that he and another student violated the school's "violence" policy for posting a flyer that parodied a flyer of the Feminist and Gender Studies program. The school also has decided not to remove any letters about the case from the students' files until after graduation. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is assisting Robinson in his case against the school.

"First, Colorado College trampled over Chris Robinson's right to engage in an obvious parody, and now the school has further embarrassed itself by denying his appeal," FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. "The judicial procedure was a joke: the same administrator who found Robinson guilty in the first place was the final judge of his appeal. FIRE calls on Colorado College to remove this guilty finding once and for all from the students' records. As long as they are deemed guilty for engaging in satire, the school's extensive promises of free expression are brazen misrepresentations."

In early 2008, Colorado College's "Feminist and Gender Studies Interns" distributed a flyer called "The Monthly Rag," which included a reference to "male castration," an announcement about a lecture on "feminist porn," and an explanation of "packing" (pretending to have a phallus). As a parody of "The Monthly Rag," Robinson and a second student, who wishes to remain anonymous, distributed a flyer in February called "The Monthly Bag" under the pseudonym "The Coalition of Some Dudes." The flyer included references to "tough guy wisdom," "chainsaw etiquette," the shooting range of a sniper rifle, and a quotation about "female violence and abuse" of men from the website batteredmen.com.

After the "Dudes" faced penalties including expulsion for three weeks, Vice President for Student Life/Dean of Students Mike Edmonds finally wrote to the "Coalition of Some Dudes" students on March 25, stating that they had been found guilty of "violating the student code of conduct policy on violence." The punishments included having the finding of guilt placed in their student files and being required to hold a forum to "discuss issues and questions raised" by their parody. Although Edmonds acknowledged that the intent of the publication was to satirize "The Monthly Rag," he wrote that "in the climate in which we find ourselves today, violence-or implied violence-of any kind cannot be tolerated on a college campus." According to Edmonds, "the juxtaposition of weaponry and sexuality" in an anonymous parody made students subjectively feel threatened by chainsaws or rifles.

"Colorado College should declare the students innocent immediately," Kissel said. "FIRE will continue to pursue this case until these students' records are completely cleared of any alleged wrongdoing. President Celeste still has a chance to do justice in this case."

Is the American national anthem politically incorrect? From the 4th verse:Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."

Mohammad

The truth can be offensive to some but it must be said

"HATE SPEECH" is free speech: The U.S. Supreme Court stated the general rule regarding protected speech in Texas v. Johnson (109 S.Ct. at 2544), when it held: "The government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable." Federal courts have consistently followed this. Said Virginia federal district judge Claude Hilton: "The First Amendment does not recognize exceptions for bigotry, racism, and religious intolerance or ideas or matters some may deem trivial, vulgar or profane."

Even some advocacy of violence is protected by the 1st Amendment. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that speech advocating violent illegal actions to bring about social change is protected by the First Amendment "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

The double standard: Atheists can put up signs and billboards saying that Christianity is wrong and that is hunky dory. But if a Christian says that homosexuality is wrong, that is attacked as "hate speech"

One for the militant atheists to consider: "...it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" -- Thomas Jefferson

"I think no subject should be off-limits, and I regard the laws in many Continental countries criminalizing Holocaust denial as philosophically repugnant and practically useless – in that they confirm to Jew-haters that the Jews control everything (otherwise why aren’t we allowed to talk about it?)" -- Mark Steyn

Voltaire's most famous saying was actually a summary of Voltaire's thinking by one of his biographers rather than something Voltaire said himself. Nonetheless it is a wholly admirable sentiment: "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I am of a similar mind.

The traditional advice about derogatory speech: "Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you". Apparently people today are not as emotionally robust as their ancestors were.

The KKK were members of the DEMOCRATIC party. Google "Klanbake" if you doubt it

A phobia is an irrational fear, so the terms "Islamophobic" and "homophobic" embody a claim that the people so described are mentally ill. There is no evidence for either claim. Both terms are simply abuse masquerading as diagnoses and suggest that the person using them is engaged in propaganda rather than in any form of rational or objective discourse.

Leftists often pretend that any mention of race is "racist" -- unless they mention it, of course. But leaving such irrational propaganda aside, which statements really are racist? Can statements of fact about race be "racist"? Such statements are simply either true or false. The most sweeping possible definition of racism is that a racist statement is a statement that includes a negative value judgment of some race. Absent that, a statement is not racist, for all that Leftists might howl that it is. Facts cannot be racist so nor is the simple statement of them racist. Here is a statement that cannot therefore be racist by itself, though it could be false: "Blacks are on average much less intelligent than whites". If it is false and someone utters it, he could simply be mistaken or misinformed.

Categorization is a basic human survival skill so racism as the Left define it (i.e. any awareness of race) is in fact neither right nor wrong. It is simply human

Whatever your definition of racism, however, a statement that simply mentions race is not thereby racist -- though one would think otherwise from American Presidential election campaigns. Is a statement that mentions dogs, "doggist" or a statement that mentions cats, "cattist"?

If any mention of racial differences is racist then all Leftists are racist too -- as "affirmative action" is an explicit reference to racial differences

Was Abraham Lincoln a racist? "You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated." -- Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862

Gimlet-eyed Leftist haters sometimes pounce on the word "white" as racist. Will the time come when we have to refer to the White House as the "Full spectrum of light" House?

The spirit of liberty is "the spirit which is not too sure that it is right." and "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it." -- Judge Learned Hand

Mostly, a gaffe is just truth slipping out

Two lines below of a famous hymn that would be incomprehensible to Leftists today ("honor"? "right"? "freedom?" Freedom to agree with them is the only freedom they believe in)

First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean

It is of course the hymn of the USMC -- still today the relentless warriors that they always were.

It seems a pity that the wisdom of the ancient Greek philosopher Epictetus is now little known. Remember, wrote the Stoic thinker, "that foul words or blows in themselves are no outrage, but your judgment that they are so. So when any one makes you angry, know that it is your own thought that has angered you. Wherefore make it your endeavour not to let your impressions carry you away."

"Since therefore the knowledge and survey of vice is in this world so necessary to the constituting of human virtue, and the scanning of error to the confirmation of truth, how can we more safely, and with less danger, scout into the regions of sin and falsity than by reading all manner of tractates, and hearing all manner of reason?" -- English poet John Milton (1608-1674) in Areopagitica

Leftists can try to get you fired from your job over something that you said and that's not an attack on free speech. But if you just criticize something that they say, then that IS an attack on free speech

The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) could have been speaking of much that goes on today when he said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

I despair of the ADL. Jews have enough problems already and yet in the ADL one has a prominent Jewish organization that does its best to make itself offensive to Christians. Their Leftism is more important to them than the welfare of Jewry -- which is the exact opposite of what they ostensibly stand for! Jewish cleverness seems to vanish when politics are involved. Fortunately, Christians are true to their saviour and have loving hearts. Jewish dissatisfaction with the myopia of the ADL is outlined here. Note that Foxy was too grand to reply to it.

There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)

NOTE: The archives provided by blogspot below are rather inconvenient. They break each month up into small bits. If you want to scan whole months at a time, the backup archives will suit better. See here or here